But if everyone on 'the left' was more concerned with being correct rather than enacting policy goals, why were those programs not couched in terms of helping the poor?

If you think John Oliver is driving political discourse, especially on 'the left' (I doubt his ratings are that high, and the only clips of him I've seen were against Trump, FIFA, the NCAA, and televangelists, all of which were shared by Republicans despite my Facebook friends being probably 3:1 Democrats) you could be pretty far down an academic/wonkish rabbit hole or just spending too much time on Reddit. Same with Sanders/Trump supporters; at that point it's down to 10 percent of some minority of people who actually voted in primaries.

Huh? It's exactly because of a 'correct' mentality the poor are being told they are too stupid to realize that these programs benefit them (I think especially with things like the ACA, Democrats did a REALLY bad job of making the case for it especially in moral terms - the article discusses this lack of public defense when it came to states that didn't expand Medicare).

A lot of these programs were focused on middle class people because you aren't really going to be doing a lot of stuff for people who despise you.

I'm actually happy SCHIP is coming back into the conversation, but it's mostly because people attacked Hillary Clinton on her accomplishments and that's her biggest one... and definitely one that was directly focused to benefit the working poor.


Jon Stewart, not Oliver. And for many years, Stewart was the prophet to these look-down-your-nose liberals.

Everything is focused on the middle class because programs for the poor are extremely unpopular. If the ACA were sold as an anti-poverty program half of the spineless Dems in the Senate would have bailed.

No, it's because of the effectiveness of which 'helping the poor' can be transmuted to 'helping Shaniqua, who has 5 kids with 5 different men, buy a new iPhone while she doesn't even have to look for a job.' That Democratic politicans attempt to circumvent that entirely by focusing on the middle class rather than simply stating the facts of who benefits from welfare programs, how often these programs are actually 'cheated,' etc., is the definition of being pragmatic rather than insisting on being correct.


So to fewer than 1 percent of the electorate, and that's assuming that every single person who watched that show was expecting it to be some driving force for political change rather than just some goofy TV show that one would watch as a distraction from 'real life' just as one watches sports, the Food Network, or about any other thing on cable TV.

Is that why Tea Party folks were so adamant that they keep their Medicare and Social Security?

Come on, now. I know you're aware that folks think of those as "earned" benefits rather than welfare.

edit: People believe they worked all their lives to earn those benefits while welfare recipients don't work and just get handouts from the government.

Medicare is paid through the same tax mechanism that fund unemployment insurance, of course. And expansion of Medicare, therefore, should also fall under the "I've earned that" rubric.

I think we've ALL seen poll numbers that indicate white working class people will actually support progressive policies on opinion surveys. An example of that is raising the minimum wage actually receives quite a bit of support from the white working class - and that does benefit the poor. And at the same time, doesn't crater support in the middle class.

For example, this is a fantastic article from last year in the Washington Monthly that touches on this phenomenon:

Undermining the GOP’s White Working Class “Base:” Levison on Progressive Strategies for the Conservative Heartland by Ed Kilgore | Political Animal | The Washington Monthly

Sure, but it can't be sold as primarily benefiting the poor. Poor people don't vote, and the working and middle classes are very much opposed to benefits for the poor. That's why everything is sold as benefiting the middle class.

I think there's room for a big set of proposals to benefit the working class, higher minimum wage, increased overtime, etc. Basically policies that build on the idea that full time workers shouldn't live in poverty. But the Dems don't stand for anything, so, oh well.

I think your last paragraph here encapsulates it somewhat. There are proposals that the Democrats can, and in the past would have, advance that would benefit the working class and working poor, by selling it in the way that you have - "full time workers shouldn't live in poverty". The party isn't necessarily making that case, or is kind of using it as "and also we should" as opposed to standing up and promoting it and saying why they should promote it.

Maybe it's starting to change? This election seems like it could bring about quite a bit of realignment... but... maybe not?

In reality, empathy doesn't go that far and "Full time workers should not have to live in poverty" quickly takes a back seat to "I make $15/hr and you think some burger flipper should be getting paid as much as me!?"

It goes a whole Hell of a lot further than calling someone too stupid to know what is best for them.

And you now, what... Actually I think it would go quite far. Because when you propose a policy, those you are intending to help don't so mistrust you that they instinctively wonder how you are trying to screw them over by it.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

True....which is why it may need to be pointed out to the $15/hr worker that they are, in fact, the working poor.

What does that have to do with your perception that Democratic politicians haven't been strong enough in advocating for a higher minimum wage? That's another issue you've cited where elected officials, regardless of whatever their true beliefs may be, have decided to not go against the status quo because it's a non-starter at best, and more likely political suicide unless they are running in the bluest of areas. Once again, that's the antithesis of caring about being right at all costs.

There is almost zero overlap with this idea of an ivory tower, Daily Show-watching liberal and someone who actually runs for office and tries to set policy goals.


Yeah, and as illustrated, making that point is tantamount to 'you're telling people they're too stupid to realize what their own economic interests are.'

I am not entirely sure you understand what the being correct over all actually means. It's the concept of there being a correct notion and those who don't accept that notion are just too stupid to get it.

And FWIW, raising the min wage actually scores quite well with the white working class in polling. But they aren't going to trust you if they feel you are talking down to them or don't respect them.

And you may not think there is an overlap between the Daily Show liberal and the politician (I don't think that is the case at all, btw, though it may not be a majority of Dem pols, so let's go with it for this sake), but white working class folks sure do know about the contempt and the ridicule. I mean, it wasn't just the Daily Show that mocked Kim Davis for her looks or multiple marriages. Some mainstream press was definitely involved and white working class folks definitely noticed.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

My wife is from Rowan county and I went to school there. Even the working class folks of Morehead have a distaste for Kim Davis. She basically inherited the office from her mother and isn't seen as a courageous truth teller, but as a glory seeking publicity hound. SHe makes more than double the median wage in the county and hires her family where she's legally able.

The people that support her aren't going to vote for Dems because they see social issues as more important than economic issues. You can present all the economic policy papers you want and they'll still vote for the pro-life candidate every time.

I understand that crystal clear, and that is not something a politician does, at least not one who stays in the game long enough to have a say in the party's overall strategy. A politician operating under such a worldview would propose a minimum wage bill based on the merits of how it would help the working poor and then say "well, I tried, but these idiots just keep shooting themselves in the foot" after the bill was crushed under opposition from Republicans elected by working-class whites; instead, as you described, the opposite tends to happen (which then leads to blowback from the other extreme chastising them for hating the poor and making everything about the middle class). So, who are the politicians who have operated under this assumption and are to blame for the Dems losing the white working class vote over the last 50-ish years? Honestly curious.

You have focused on those who are reportedly going to switch from Sanders to Trump if Clinton is nominated. Assuming that everybody who announced that intent would actually do so, this is something like 0.1% of the electorate. These voters would be predominantly be union employees who feel as though both parties have sold their jobs overseas out for a quick buck for too long and that Trump qualifies as more anti-establishment than Clinton (otherwise, if the purported liberal smugness were so pervasive and toxic these voters would already be Trump supporters). Anything beyond that is such a small number as to be entirely inconsequential.


FWIW, closing background check loopholes scores quite well with gun owners in polling, but when something's actually on the table there's plenty of advance warning to sound the "slippery slope next they're coming for all the guns!" alarm and it has no chance of passing, regardless of what one's intentions were going in. That's the exact same thing that would happen in the context of raising the minimum wage.


I could not pick Kim Davis out of a police lineup, but are you seriously implying it's considered out of bounds to mock the hypocrisy of someone who's been divorced multiple times claiming Biblical grounds for not allowing gay people to get married? The divorces are pretty relevant information to that story.

I think you are making my point for me. They are afraid of the slippery slope because they don't trust the people making the proposal. They don't believe that is where they will halt, even if those politicians say so. Because they feel those pols don't respect them and think they are rubes (you know the whole "Only Nixon could go to China" in a way)

In addition, I don't think Democratic politicians are saying those people are rubes and can't decide, but like the Republican politicians they have code words ("Wrong side of history" is one of the most popular on the Dem side). You can, and people generally do, get to what is behind the deniable carefully chosen words of the politicians by bringing up the example of each side's id. For the GOP, lots of people point to what is being said on talk radio and FOX news as being what is really behind Republican politicians. Why is there such pushback in looking at what is behind Dems (The Daily Show, Air America, etc)?

And once again, no one said the smug attitudes have led to the leaving of the working class whites. Rather the other way around. Why do you perpetuate this thing no one has really said?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

That's why I provided that initial example. You described it as an ineffectual way of letting off steam adopted by people who are taking the 'easy way out' compared to, I suppose, quitting one's day job to go door-to-door trying to win over hearts and minds.

Kim Davis took the easy way out by doing what she did rather than using her own free time to try preaching the word of God to every gay person she encountered in hopes they'd change their lifestyle. Destroying property is also taking the easy way out compared to engaging in the political process.

I could accuse you of condescension for assuming that people are not aware of the idea that if they do a good enough job of convincing everyone, they can determine the laws everyone has to follow. People are smart enough to know this and still take the easy way out because it's easier.

So, of all the different ways one can take the easy way out, laughing at people for being stupid and providing specific examples of their stupidity (to the extent this actually does happen rather the much more common response of apathy or fatigue to the vast amount of dumb things people can and will do) is actually legal and does much less harm than the alternatives.


Yeah, so this completely flies in the face of common sense and social science (Milgram experiment, Stanford prison experiment).

If the white working class poor are as smart as Rensin argues, then they should have no problem recognizing that Medicaid expansion helps them, despite how it was sold. You can't have it both ways. Either the poor white working class are too dumb to recognize which programs and policies demonstrably aid them, or they are smart and absolutely can and reject those programs for other issues at the ballot box (as JPhillips provides the example).


The thing both Trump & Sanders have in common is the extent to which they pander to their supporters by promising them things that not only can they not deliver, but frankly they probably know they can't deliver. If this is what "not talking down to poor working-class whites" is then I have a hard time seeing how it's a virtue.

And again, from his tweets Rensin is a far-left, young, Sanders supporter. He doesn't want to be told that the policies he supports are not currently politically feasible. He interprets this as (a part of) "smug". He, just like the poor working-class whites he's championing (who, by the way, aren't going to take a break from listening to Rush Limbaugh to read his essay), aren't interested in engaging in an actual dialogue on realistic policy and ways to achieve it. And perhaps that, not smugness, is the real problem here. Smugness is just the final result of the exasperation of those on the other side of the dialogue that isn't happening.


You're conflating Medicare with Medicaid. As you know, it was the latter that was expanded under the ACA. To the people we're talking about Medicare is "earned" while Medicaid is "welfare".

Because the GOP id attacks people for things they can't change or can't change easily (race, sexual preference, religion, etc...) while the Democratic id attacks people for things they can (turn off Fox News for a moment and read an article with actual cited sources).

And people say Dems are smug, I can't imagine where they get that from. Wonderful observation with absolutely no generalization involved sir :banghead:

Of course I'm generalizing. :D

Wait, do you think the id is referring to something that does not generalize?

As if Democratic voters don't have difficulty identifying programs that help them when offered by the "other side" (as in free trade... granted, I may have in the past indicated that people who oppose free trade are dumb, but that wasn't exactly the best way to win those people over - I try not to do that anymore). We know of plenty of examples where people will support things when done by their party, but will oppose them when the exact same thing is proposed by the opposite party. Part of that is no doubt tribalism, but part of that may be lack of trust for the intentions of the other side...

If only we had an example of white working class people whose state granted Medicaid expansion and then had to deal with a future Governor who proposed taking it away to see if the experience changed their minds on the issue... Oh wait... we do!

Poll: Majority in Kentucky want to keep Medicaid expansion | TheHill


I can guarantee you the numbers were not close to as high as when Gov. Beshear and the Kentucky legislature expanded Medicaid.


Think about the last time you were having a dialogue with someone who frustrated you because you think they weren't getting it or weren't interested in dialogue. Did being smug over that person do anything positive? Did it help matters at all?

I pointed it out before, but we have people on FOFC who seemingly don't "[engage] in an actual dialogue on realistic policy and ways to achieve it". Does being smug to them actually result in anything worthwhile. Heck, I find when I step away from things for a second, I can sometimes have a worth while conversation with some of those folks and we can even agree on certain things.


You're right. My mistake - was probably responding very quickly and didn't think it through well enough.

Sorry, I didn't mean this as a jab, actually. I was pressed for time and responded quickly. I figured you actually knew the difference and mis-typed, similarly pressed for time.

The rest of your post is worth responding to, but when I have more time. There is, honestly, a lot lot more worth delving into here, even if I'm increasingly of the opinion that the original piece (Rensin's, not yours) is a thinly-veiled concern troll from a Sanders supporter towards the rest of us. Your commentary, to be specific, is what's worth responding to, and I do feel there's a lot to discuss there, especially when we consider the future of Generation X progressives.

Also, because I am smug: Bernie Sanders explains his primary losses: 'Poor people don't vote' | US news | The Guardian

I don't really believe Rensin is doing some trolling Sanders push - I mean its Vox, which every Sanders supporter apparently believes is in the bag for Clinton anyways. Also trolling posts don't run into 7,000 words. And from what I gather from Twitter, Rensin is a socialist who thinks Sanders is "ok" at best, hence the incrementalist comment. Anyways, who he is and what he may believe is not important (it's slightly ad hominem) - what he says is the interesting part.

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones basically embraces what Rensin is saying, but restates it, saying Liberals (himself included) aren't smug, they are condescending:

Are Liberals Too Smug? Nah, We're Too Condescending. | Mother Jones

Cute. Not a presidential thing to do (IMO) but its for a good cause and with friends.

The Obamas Trade Escalating Twitter Threats With Prince Harry And Queen Elizabeth II

--Andrew Sullivan's new piece.

This seems to me to get to the core of a lot of the right-wing anger that liberals are having trouble understanding.

Link?

First off, this entire quote is a bullshit, over-generalization. To say that conservatives get to corner the market on the "white, working class is beyond disingenuous and insulting to the masses that aren't conservative, and yet still, white, working class.

The quote goes on to now throw in attacks on the religion, race, gender, that they've had their jobs usurped from them because of the influx of cheap, liberal supported, illegal immigrant labor. He might have thrown in the actual slaughter of the puppies of white, working class children.

it's hard to argue that equality of opportunity is even a thing that this conservative writer even cares about after conservative lawmakers have put the screws voting and women's health services in state governments.

That's a conservative writer? If so, he clearly doesn't see Trump among his numbers!

Have you met Andrew Sullivan? ;)

I mean at some point, he may have considered himself a Conservative (well, I guess he still does in the Oakshott, Burkean way), but he fits in more with the Conservative Party in his old home in Great Britain than he does with the Republican Party.

You guys are missing the point. The fact still stands that the over generalizations and the swiping of wide groups into neat, little pockets of homogeneity, completely undermines the argument that liberals now have a war against the white, working class.

Over-generalizations based on exit polling, of course. Just because it is an over generalization doesn't mean it isn't based on factual observations.

Although results of Obama's foreign policy overall is not as good as I would have liked it to be, he keeps on killing senior level terrorists.

Not sure if this helps or hurts (e.g. devil you know) and ISIL has replaced AQ to be the preeminent radical Islamic terrorist group anyway.

Taliban leader Mullah Mansour likely killed in airstrike, U.S. officials say - CNNPolitics.com

I guess part of Obama's legacy is now somewhat dependent if Hillary gets elected and how well she does in the first 2-4 years.

I've looked but haven't found a nice summarized grid of how Hillary differs from Obama but suspect more left on domestic and more right on foreign policies.

Without a doubt much more hawkish than Obama.

My biggest question is will she pursue business friendly agendas and deregulation like her husband did that lead to the housing crash or will she make her own path in a different direction?

I guess that probably depends on Congress and how much power they have at the time.

only took them nearly the entirety of Obams's Presidency to come up with their own healthcare plan:

Republicans Release Alternative to Obamacare - NBC News

In the meantime...

The US is spending trillions less than expected on health care — and uninsured rates are at an all-time low - Vox

"Only" $21T? Instead of the doomsday scenario of $23T. So it will cost only 10 Iraq Wars instead of 11. Sweet!

But I do appreciate the well crafted "Spending trillions less" headline. Isnt that a core component of a sales pitch? Under promise and over deliver? Gotcha, hook, line and sinker.

I don't disagree there needs to be immigration reform but am okay with this. Hillary will just have to pick up where he left off.

BTW - Hispanic supporters of reform or anti-Trump Wall shouldn't be waving the Mexican flag.

Supreme Court puts Obama immigration legacy on the ballot - CNNPolitics.com

Especially when you're burning the American one :mad:

You respond like it went from 0 to 21T just because of ACA. Look at it anyway you want. It's been a success, and a massive success next to the fears that were stoked after it was passed.

It's also 2.1 trillion less than was forecasted without Obamacare.

So far. The crap hits the fan in the coming years. I know my company just let us know that they're raising our rates due to the "Cadillac tax" next year. As wells as the large increase in rates for straight up Obamacare...

About That Cadillac Tax


So wait, they're raising your rates now because of the Cadillac tax?

(Plus, it seems like the whole point of that tax - which seems like a sports luxury tax - is to incentivize companies to cut health care expenditures.)

Oh, this is a good one and sure to help the cause.

AZ Anti-Trump Protester: ‘Make America Mexico Again’ - Breitbart

I support Obamacare because it was better than status quo. However I don't really view it as a massive success. The grand vision was to get most of the estimated 40M+ under-insured with some sort of medical coverage but that didn't happen. I get he went for single payer and had to compromise.

One of my biggest beefs with the healthcare industry is the lack of transparency in treatment costs upfront. It made the insurance company more transparent but not the healthcare provider. What other services do you buy that you don't know how much it (estimated) costs are upfront and can't shop & compare.

Yes. According to HR it's part of a plan to "minimize X company's exposure to the Affordable Care Act's 40% excise tax."

I think a number of companies use the ACA as an excuse to screw their employees.

It's an article by Vox.

Some insight into how Obama spends his time after normal working hours.

Log In - The New York Times

Another data point for the Obama presidency, significant progress towards oil independence. He gets some but not all the credit as it really wasn't his policies that made this happen, but it happened on his watch and at least he didn't screw it up.

I'm willing to pay more for US oil than to rely on OPEC nations (and subsidize their extravagance).

Obama has presided over America's biggest oil boom ever - Jul. 21, 2016

Aetna pulling out of most of health care exchanges.

Aetna to pull out of most Obamacare exchanges - Aug. 15, 2016

United and Blue Cross has pulled mostly out of Illinois. Plus a few co-ops went out of business. Can't speak for other states but the exchange has been an utter disaster in Illinois.

No one knows why? HAHAHA! Nice try Dallas News. While no official correlation exists yet, I'm going to go out on a limb and point to the decision to "protect the lives of women," that's been incredibly important in the closing of women's health centers across the state.

"The rise in pregnancy-related deaths in 2011 coincided with the beginning of major budget cuts in Texas. In September of that year, health care providers across the state began to feel the effects of a family planning budget reduced by two-thirds."

With Matt Bevin in office in Kentucky, and his desire to see the same thing here, I'm sure that we'll see the same result follow here in Kentucky, one of the poorest states in the US. Woohoo for protecting women!!!!


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/polit...-knows-why.ece

Apparently we still have a sitting president

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...arabia-n652911

I don't get this bill. If somebody does sue Saudi Arabia, who's going to make them pay up?

IF there's judgements against them, then they can file liens against saudi assets here in the US.

Anyone see Clinton on "Between Two Ferns?" Zach Galiafinakis does a great job with this.

So if he does not veto that bill, can Iraqi civilians sue the US for killing innocent family members in bombings? Odd.

Yeah, the suing a foreign country for U.S. assets was used to great effect on the Iranians. I'm sure the Saudis raised hell about this and regardless of party we always seem to cave to the Saudis.

It's crazy how much power Saudi Arabia has over this country at times.

Read The Atlantic's Obama Doctrine article, it helps to show how frustrated & hamstrung Barack is on that issue.

But regardless of how complicit I think the Saudi's are it's clearly in our best interests to deny lawsuits like this. Otherwise we'd be culpable for a lawsuit every drone strike.

Do you have a link to hand?

PS - I'd expect a lot of the reason for the veto was to do with the potential for other countries being able to apply the same logic in reverse to the US, ie. suing for damage/loss of life ...

I do think this will setup a precedence and we don't want to go there. I want SA to pay for fostering/cultivating such an environment but it'll open up a can of worms that is better deferred as long as possible ... and TBH, we still need their "friendship" right now with the ME in turmoil & their oil (while we develop ours and alternate methods).

Another shooting in WA, a (future) plea from Obama for additional controls, run up in gun & ammo sales, Donald taking credit somehow for calling it, congress doesn't do anything, rinse and repeat.

Let's be honest, the cops are scared of the amount of guns everywhere. Legal and illegal, doesn't matter because it only takes 1 law abiding citizen to decide he wants to kill. But the sheer number of guns on the street makes it much harder on the police.

Yes this is totally the case

Most definitely. I mean this one law won't end the concept of sovereign immunity in toto, but it'll make it easier to chip away at the ediface and sooner rather than later, the US will have to pay the piper... not by Saudi Arabia, but other countries who decide well if sovereign immunity isn't that important to the US, why should it for us?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ctrine/471525/

President Obama’s Interview With Jeffrey Goldberg on Syria and Foreign Policy - The Atlantic

It's a long article with a lot of focus on his decision not to bomb Assad after he used chemical weapons for the first time, and his overall attempt at an Asian pivot, but the relevant Saudi quotes I saw on a skim thru.

So the Senate overrode Obama's veto and now Mitch McConnell is worried that the bill could have unforseen consequences. And if you're wondering whose fault that is, it's Obama.

McConnell: Saudi 9/11 law could have 'unintended ramifications' - POLITICO

LOL! It's Obama's fault because he didn't tell us what the consequences were early enough!

Obama and the State Department had only publicly brought up the same concerns that McConnell has now in April at the earliest (it's the oldest story I was able to find in a quick search). So even if nothing privately was said before that, five months just isn't enough time!

McConnell's complaining literally less than 24 hours after he himself cast a vote to override a veto, thus ensuring passage of a bill about which he now has second thoughts? Well, that's either wildly stupid or pretty brazen.

And you wonder why your approval ratings continue to go down into oblivion McConnell?

Hilarious: Barack having to wait on Bill Clinton as they're leaving Israel together. pic.twitter.com/nvMmbkBWVV

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) September 30, 2016

I'm expecting in a November rush to confirm him we'll hear, "If Obama wanted Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court he really should have said something to us sooner."

Either that or something about a failure of leadership as the White House didn't make a clear case for Garland's qualifications and it shameful that Obama allowed a Supreme Court vacancy to remain for so long.

Meanwhile, if an average American displayed this type of incompetence on the job, they'd likely be fired.

LOL sounds about right.

I think what happened was that McConnell thought he could bring it up and then the Democrats would vote against an override. Then, the GOP could use the vote against Dems for the election. I doubt he expected the override to actually pass, but Dems didn't play his game and now we're stuck with a stupid law.

Perfect example of Party > Country, which seems to be S.O.P. for the GOP for two decades now.

WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails

Dola. Wanted to pull this out of the election thread because I don't want to get bogged down arguing about the specific contents or their domestic political ramifications. But with more emails coming out (and being pushed as the main campaign issue by Trump) and the Clinton campaign doubling down on blaming Russia and trying to tie Russia to Assange and both to Trump rather than addressing the (somewhat embarrassing, but not too damaging in this clusterfuck of an election) content, I'm curious what people think will be the ramifications down the line?

Now, this is consistent with parts of the Russian playbook, though there they were sowing disinformation, and outside of one or two minor oddities these emails appear genuine. And of course there are plenty of anti-Hillary people, and she doesn't strike me as the person who would be too hard to hack. So I suppose the question of whether it actually was Russia is there, though the question of whether they can prove it was Russia (using anything intel gathering sources they're willing to admit to) seems more pertinent and debatable.

So is her & her team's current rhetoric inflaming anything and creating an issue that will play out in her first year in office at this point? And is this something the US government should be actively pushing against (like the Europeans), or is relying on mainstream news sources to get something close to the truth enough?

Uh the senate vote to override the veto was 97-1. Stupid bill, very likely unintended consequences but hardly partisan stupidity on this one.

I don't think there will be ramifications from the emails/Russian hack if Hillary wins (unless there is a real big surprise yet uncovered).

I do think the Cold War II is starting up, not much she can do with Putin still around. When she gets into office, she'll be managing much larger issues than just an embarrassing hack.

I'm pretty sure she won't be happy that Putin pushed for hacking the Democrats and Clinton herself. She probably will be less inclined to work with Russia on things - then again, the Obama Administration is already right there.

She'll hand Putin another reset button. It'll be fine.

Nope. Re-read what I was responding to:

That's a pretty naive view. Edward & ISiddiqui have it right, I think.

It was a non-serious answer and I was referencing this

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...n-translation/

Here's a change I can get behind!

Obama lifts restrictions on Cuban rum, cigars

Ah, sorry.

Getting to be that time to close the chapter on the Obama presidency and start reflecting on what was/not accomplished/missed opps and how the US/World is/not better off.

Looking forward to everyone's honest opinions.

Yikes

Obamacare premiums to soar 22% on average - Oct. 24, 2016

Most people won't feel those increases (the article says 85%) and the subsidy limit will increase. The bigger problem from that article is the number of insurers leaving the marketplace. That's a bigger concern right now than premium increases.

Well someone is picking up that extra cost, right?